On 2/8/21 10:22 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 5:53 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:With later hashmap example, using bpftool xlated output may look like: int dump_task(struct bpf_iter__task * ctx): ; struct task_struct *task = ctx->task; 0: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8) ; if (task == (void *)0 || called > 0) ... 19: (18) r2 = subprog[+18] 30: (18) r2 = subprog[+26] ... 36: (95) exit __u64 check_hash_elem(struct bpf_map * map, __u32 * key, __u64 * val, struct callback_ctx * data): ; struct bpf_iter__task *ctx = data->ctx; 37: (79) r5 = *(u64 *)(r4 +0) ... 55: (95) exit __u64 check_percpu_elem(struct bpf_map * map, __u32 * key, __u64 * val, void * unused): ; check_percpu_elem(struct bpf_map *map, __u32 *key, __u64 *val, void *unused) 56: (bf) r6 = r3 ... 83: (18) r2 = subprog[+-46]this +-46 looks very confusing...
Make sense, will use %+d to have either +46 or -46.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> --- tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c index 8608cd68cdd0..7bdd90503727 100644 --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c @@ -196,6 +196,9 @@ static const char *print_imm(void *private_data, else if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_VALUE) snprintf(dd->scratch_buff, sizeof(dd->scratch_buff), "map[id:%u][0]+%u", insn->imm, (insn + 1)->imm); + else if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC) + snprintf(dd->scratch_buff, sizeof(dd->scratch_buff), + "subprog[+%d]", insn->imm + 1);why not `subprog[%+d]` instead (see above about confusing output)else snprintf(dd->scratch_buff, sizeof(dd->scratch_buff), "0x%llx", (unsigned long long)full_imm); -- 2.24.1
